Hour
3 -- Alan Hall (Elliott Wave) talks about his study on authoritarianism (specifically Alan does a wide variety of research aimed at demonstrating the utility of socionomic theory)

Due
to his busy schedule, we are doing this pre-recorded interview with
Pastor Chuck Baldwin to get an update on what he has been doing, the
progress of Liberty Fellowship (the congregation he Pastors), and the
formation of the Liberty Church Project...

Hour 4 -- Ernest interviews Chuck Baldwin (Chuck Baldwin Live and
Pastor of Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, MT) on the Liberty Church
Project (helping to establish these non 501c3, liberty-oriented churches
and fellowships), and preparing to survive the coming collapse...

The chart is a screengrab of Craigslist
homepage and a list of valuable startups that attack specific
functionalities within Craigslist. For example, job site Indeed was
acquired for about $1 billion and is competitive with Craigslist's Jobs
section. Etsy is a $1 billion-plus company that competes with
Craigslist's For Sale category.

"Some of [the startups] have IPO'd," Parker says. "Others are out of
business. If you could have made investments in all of these companies
back in 2010, you'd have a portfolio of 34 companies with roughly 6-8 billion dollar outcomes, which would likely be one of the best venture funds of the decade."

[Ed: In this, our most-read article, socionomist Alan
Hall explains that negative mood engenders strong authoritarian and
anti-authoritarian impulses. He details what to expect in this regard
during deepening negative mood, including heated battles between
increasingly polarized proponents of liberty and control. The following
excerpt from the April / May 2010 article showcases some of the
insights.

Bear Markets Encourage Authoritarianism
Figure 2 shows that over the past 300 years, major bear markets hosted
most of the notable examples of authoritarianism. There are incidents of
authoritarianism in bull markets, but they are fewer and smaller. Our
Authoritarian Survey chart plots the Dow against the appearance and
activities of such tyrants as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Ze Dong,
Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

Figure 2

? Resurging Authoritarianism Today
Another bear market began in 2000, and authoritarianism is waxing along
with it. ? Both Russia and China have histories of extreme
authoritarianism, and both countries are now attempting to recast
democracy as a blend of free markets and authoritarian politics. British
historian Timothy Garton Ash calls authoritarian capitalism "the
biggest potential ideological competitor to liberal democratic
capitalism since the end of communism." A June 2009 Foreign Policy
Magazine article, "Authoritarianism's New Wave," describes the
countries' impressive new global media tactics:

?The Authoritarian Progression
Based on the evolution of authoritarian regimes in the past and what we
observe in society today, it is logical to expect the progression from
social fear to authoritarianism to unfold in roughly the following
fashion:

A general bearish fear of the future causes people to coalesce into
groups with polarized views on the authoritarian/anti-authoritarian
issue. These disparate groups exclude all messages that contradict their
opinions. ? Leaders encourage their groups to see other groups as
threats; actions escalate in a quid pro quo.

As society's consensus diffuses into fearful discord,
authoritarianism gains footholds. The majority of people see each
authoritarian step as merely temporary, necessary inconveniences?small
freedoms traded for promises of safety. As fear increases, society makes
ever-larger concessions. If a negative trend in social mood is large
enough, blatantly authoritarian leaders emerge and promise security.
They attract support as well as strident opposition. In most cases, we
can't say which side will ultimately prevail. ?

Here are several specific forecasts and examples that typify the authoritarian trend generated by the deepening bear in mood:

Governments will shut down sections of the Internet
A government that feels threatened by its citizens usually clamps down
on the information flow. This makes the Internet a prime
authoritarian/anti-authoritarian battleground. In November 2009, the
Italian Interior Ministry requested that Google, owner of YouTube,
remove a video showing high-school boys in Turin, Italy, taunting a boy
with a mental disability. Google complied rapidly, but on February 24,
2010, Italy convicted three of the company's executives for violating
Italy's privacy laws. The judgment "could have sweeping implications
worldwide for Internet freedom" by setting a new precedent for
regulation and control of the Internet, according to The New York Times.

? Reliance on indebted governments will become a flashpoint in the authoritarian debateAmericans' reliance on government is at an all-time high, according
to The Washington Times (March 2): "For the first time since the Great
Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid
in taxes." The extreme optimism of a Grand Supercycle peak in social
mood generated huge, unsustainable government spending in many
countries. That debt is fueling anger as the bear market progresses.
Many citizens already feel dependent on the government and vulnerable to
its every decision. Such social stresses will impel both authoritarian
policies and opposition to them.

The Socionomist
delivers unique, incisive monthly analysis on cultural trends,
including those in industry, public health, politics, pop culture and
finance

In the remainder of this seven-page article, author Alan Hall:

Reviews several fearful and distrustful responses in western Africa that reflect a negative social mood in that regionOutlines several complacent reactions in the US and UK that reflect an elevated social mood in these nationsProvides a few warnings about potential inter-continental transmissionAnd surveys other health threats that are on the rise, including
chikungunya, whooping cough, measles, polio, HIV, plague, and MERS

For a limited time, you can start your risk-free subscription to The Socionomist
for just $1 for your first month. You will get instant access to the
latest issue and the full archives from the past four years. Hurry, this offer ends at 5 p.m. Eastern time Friday, Aug. 29.

(Socionomist subscribers: Log in for the full article and your complete, exclusive archive.)

The
Socionomist is designed to help readers understand
and anticipate waves of social mood. We also present the latest essays
in the field of socionomics, the study of social mood; we anticipate
that many of the hypotheses will be subjected to scientific testing in
future scholarly studies.

Correspondence is welcome, but volume of mail often precludes
a reply. Whether it is a general inquiry, socionomics commentary or a research
idea, you can email us at institute@socionomics.net.

Most economists, historians and sociologists presume that
events determine society's
mood. But socionomics hypothesizes the opposite: that social mood determines
the character of social events. The events of history?such as investment
booms and busts, political events, macroeconomic trends and even peace and war?are
the products of a naturally occurring pattern of social-mood fluctuation. Such
events, therefore, are not randomly distributed, as is commonly believed, but
are in fact probabilistically predictable. Socionomics also posits that the
stock market is the best available meter of a society's aggregate mood,
that news is irrelevant to social mood, and that financial and economic decision-making
are fundamentally different in that financial decisions are motivated by the
herding impulse while economic choices are guided by supply and demand. For
more information about socionomic theory, see (1) the text, The
Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior ? 1999, by Robert Prechter;
(2) the introductory documentary History's
Hidden Engine; (3) the video Toward
a New Science of Social Prediction, Prechter's 2004 speech before
the London School of Economics in which he presents evidence to support his
socionomic hypothesis; and (4) the Socionomics Institute's website, www.socionomics.net.
At no time will the Socionomics Institute make specific recommendations about
a course of action for any specific person, and at no time may a reader, caller
or viewer be justified in inferring that any such advice is intended.

The World Health Organization
says
the Ebola epidemic that erupted in western Africa in March 2014 is "the
largest recorded outbreak" of the disease. Aside from one case in the
Ivory Coast in 1994, the Ebola outbreak is western Africa's first. Why
here, why now?

In this timely article,
socionomist
Alan Hall explains that a six-year trend toward negative social mood in
western Africa created ideal conditions for the Ebola
outbreak.

Here is an excerpt of the
August 2014 report.

Ebola has a variable incubation period. After infection, a
person may
carry the disease anywhere between 2 and 22 days before showing
symptoms or becoming contagious. Victims bleed, vomit and suffer
diarrhea, and the virus spreads via contact with bodily fluids or
secretions, including sweat. It may be possible to get the virus simply
by touching an infected person or a contaminated object. There is no
vaccine, and quarantine is the only way to prevent contagion. But as
early as June, health officials expressed worry that many
people,

Due
to his busy schedule, we are doing this pre-recorded interview with
Pastor Chuck Baldwin to get an update on what he has been doing, the
progress of Liberty Fellowship (the congregation he Pastors), and the
formation of the Liberty Church Project...

Pastor of Liberty Fellowship - Kalispell, MTPastor
Baldwin comes on the show to provide us with an update on the Liberty
Church Project, Liberty Fellowship, the militarization of the police,
and how to best prepare yourself for surviving the
collapse

State-Run Churches Caught Red-Handed
Many 501(c)(3) pastors promote government viewpoints rather than
liberty

He recently spoke about a two-year research
project studying why
modern-day pastors and churches are so silent regarding political
issues. The result of his research only confirms what I have been trying
to tell people for years. But there was one thing his research
uncovered that did somewhat surprise me. OneNewsNow.com covered the
story:

"On Thursday, George Barna?research expert and founder of The
Barna
Group?shared with American Family Radio's 'Today's Issues' about new
information he's compiling at American Culture and Faith Institute over
the last two years, gauging where theologically conservative pastors are
at politically.

"'What we're finding is that when we ask them about all the key
issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, Yes, the Bible
speaks to every one of these issues. Then we ask them: Well, are you
teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues??and the
numbers drop?to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak
to it.'

"When researchers ask those pastors what else they are willing
to do
to get their people active in the political process, Barna said 'it's
almost nothing.'

"'So the thing that struck me has been that when we
talk about
the separation of church and state, it's that churches have separated
themselves from the activities of the state?and that's to the detriment
of the state and its people,' stated the researcher."

That 90% of America's pastors are not addressing any
of the
salient issues affecting Christian people's political or societal lives
should surprise no one?especially the readers of this column. It has
been decades since even a sizeable minority of pastors have bothered to
educate and inform their congregations as to the Biblical principles
relating to America's political, cultural, and societal lives. But the
part of the research that did somewhat surprise me was this statement by
Barna: "What we're finding is that when we ask them about all the key
issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, Yes, the Bible
speaks to every one of these issues. Then we ask them: Well, are you
teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues??and the
numbers drop?to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak
to it."

Did you get that? Ninety-percent of America's pastors
say they
KNOW that the Bible speaks to all of these issues, but they are
deliberately determined to NOT teach these Biblical principles. That is
an amazing admission!

It would have been one thing if the pastors had said
that these
political issues were not relevant to scripture, and, therefore, they
didn't feel called to address them. But the pastors are admitting that,
yes, they KNOW that the scriptures DO relate to our current political
issues, but they are deliberately choosing to NOT teach those scriptural
principles. Holy heads-in-the-sand, Batman!

I confess: this statistic caught me off-guard. So, we
can forever
dismiss ignorance as justification for pastors remaining silent.

Now, all of the church members out there who have
been forgiving
of their ministers for not speaking out on the issues by saying things
like, "He really doesn't understand what's going on," need to reevaluate
their leniency?if they are intellectually honest, that is?and if they
truly care about the future of their country.

Church member, admit it: that pastor of yours who
refuses to
speak out on the issues KNOWS the Bible speaks to these issues, and he
is DELIBERATELY refusing to teach those Biblical principles to you and
your family.

So, we are not dealing with IGNORANT pastors; we are
dealing with
DELIBERATELY DISOBEDIENT pastors. They are PURPOSELY CHOOSING to remain
silent. Will that make any difference to the Christians in the pews who
say they want their pastor to take a stand but are willing to overlook
his "ignorance?" Probably not. But, at least, we now know what the real
issue is, don't we?

The report goes on: "Why the disconnect? According to
Barna, the
answer is simple. He suggests asking pastors how someone would know if
their church is 'successful'?which he did."

"'There are five factors that the vast majority of
pastors turn
to [when asked that question],' he explained. 'Attendance, giving,
number of programs, number of staff, and square footage.'"

There you have it: pastors are more concerned about
being
"successful" than they are being truthful. They believe if they tell
their congregations the truth, their churches will not be "successful."
And it is so refreshing to see Barna directly ask pastors what "success"
means to them. So, now we know (as if we didn't know before; but, at
least now there is definitive research to back it up). The vast majority
of pastors believe church success lies in:

*Attendance

*Giving (money)

*Number of programs

*Number of staff

*Square footage (of facilities)

Shazam! Where did pastors come up with this
definition of
"success?" You know where: from men such as Joel Osteen, Rick Warren,
Bill Hybels, et al.

The megachurch phenomenon of the last several decades
transformed
how pastors think and behave. Pastors read the "successful church"
books and publications; they attend the "successful church" conferences;
they watch the "successful church" videos, etc. They, then, try to
mimic the tactics and strategies they have been taught. And if there is
one constant theme promulgated by the likes of Osteen, Warren, and
Hybels, it is pastors must avoid controversy like the plague. Again, one
must realize that the goal is NOT being faithful to Biblical
principles; the goal is building a "successful" church as noted above.

It is time for Christians to acknowledge that these
ministers are
not pastors; they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers; they are
performers. They are not shepherds; they are hirelings. It is also time
for Christians to be honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who
desires to be faithful to the scriptures, or do they want a pastor who
is simply trying to be "successful?" BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, CHRISTIAN
FRIEND.

Barna's research blows the "ignorance" excuse out of
the water. Again, it is not ignorance; it is deliberate disobedience.

Barna goes on to say, "Now all of those things [the
five points
of success listed above] are good measures, except for one tiny fact:
Jesus didn't die for any of them." Wow! You nailed it, George!

Where do you find anything in the New Testament that
measures a
pastor's success by the number of people attending his church? Or by how
large his offerings are? Or by how many programs his church has? Or by
how many staff members he has? Or by how large his facilities are? In
fact, the early New Testament church didn't even own property or
buildings.

When the Apostle Paul listed his ministerial
pedigree, here is what it looked like (II Cor. 11):

*Stripes above measure

*In prisons frequently

*In deaths often

*Beaten with rods

*Stoned

*Perils

*Weariness

*Painfulness

*Hunger and thirst

*Cold and nakedness

I don't see attendance, offerings, programs, staff,
or square footage in that list at all, do you?

When Paul wrote his own epitaph, it read, "I have
fought a good
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." (II Timothy
4:7). He didn't say, "I had a large congregation, we had big offerings,
we had a lot of programs, I had a large staff, and we had large
facilities."

In the world of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels (and 90%
of America's
pastors), the Apostle Paul's ministry must have been a dismal failure.
And how many church pulpit committees would even consider the pastoral
r?sum? such as the Apostle Paul wrote above?

Please understand this: America's malaise is directly
due to the
deliberate disobedience of America's pastors?and the willingness of the
Christians in the pews to tolerate the disobedience of their pastor.
Nothing more! Nothing less!

Oh, and get this: according to the survey conducted
by Barna,
guess what the number one reason is why pastors choose to be
"successful" and not "controversial?" You guessed it: fear of the IRS
501c3 tax-exempt status. Who would have thought it? (Yes, that question
is deliberately facetious.)

The release of this research by George Barna could
not have come
at a more opportune time. I announced just last week that we have
officially launched the Liberty Church Project, whereby we will be
helping people around the country to establish non-501c3 churches. I
invite folks (pastors or laymen) who are serious about starting new
non-501c3 churches?or helping to resurrect patriot pulpits within
existing churches?to fill out our online application. We already have
several groups that we intend to help and are looking for others. If you
are someone who is serious about such an endeavor, and seeks our
assistance, please fill out the online application here:

I want to commend George Barna for his research. I
suspect that
the vast majority of pastors and churches will ignore it, but, at least
now we know the painful truth of the matter: by in large, pastors are
deliberately choosing to not teach Biblical truth to their congregations
for the selfish goal of being "successful." But as we come to grips
with this reality, we must also acknowledge that pastors are simply (and
shamelessly) putting their fingers to the wind and finding that the
people in the pews are more interested in their churches being
"successful" than faithful to the teaching of Holy Scripture. As Barna
noted, it is the churches, themselves, that have chosen to separate from
the political affairs of their country.

In the end, it always comes down to We the People,
doesn't it? If
you want a church where the pastor is willing to teach the Biblical
principles that relate to our everyday lives?including our political
lives?you might have to vote with your feet and go find one. That is, if
that kind of thing is truly important to you.

Pastor Reveals Organized
Religion's Dirty Secret:

Published on Aug 11, 2014

Alex Jones talks with former
presidential candidate and pastor Chuck Baldwin about where the modern
church has gone wrong and become a tool of the
state.